In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Less than 1/2 of published scientists...
Ramtinxxl
Member Posts: 9,480
Comments
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=261728
When the whole story about how much energy his house uses broke in the media I was chuckling about it in the lunchroom. I work with some flaming liberals, and I thought that once, just once, one of them would admit that yeah, it does look a little bad when Mr. Global Warming himself uses more energy that Las Vegas. Not a one of them did so.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
The way you phrase it makes it look like less than have of all published scientists support the idea of global warming. But, that is what statistics are for, to say whatevr you want to believe from whatever political viewpoint you like best. I am betting on human mediated global warming, my self, driven mostly by mines burning in Asia.
If half the planet is in winter......but the whole planet is using oxygen.....could photosynthesis keep up to supply the demand?
How about a link to the article published by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte?
Congratulations....you've posted a link to a blog
How about a link to the article published by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte?
Sorry, no can do. Keeping that energy-use down here.[:p]
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Congratulations....you've posted a link to a blog
How about a link to the article published by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte?
Sorry, no can do. Keeping that energy-use down here.[:p]
At least you're doing your part.....
Wait for the carbon tax. That's what they are prepping us for. You'll have to pay a tax to breathe lol... or use your car.
The whole "human-caused global warming" thing is about taxes--and the removal of personal freedoms. It's a left-wing, UN-loving sorta thing from the *-go.[V][:(!][xx(]
The whole "human-caused global warming" thing is about taxes--and the removal of personal freedoms. It's a left-wing, UN-loving sorta thing from the *-go.[V][:(!][xx(]
Anytime you want to post a link to that study.......
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
The whole "human-caused global warming" thing is about taxes--and the removal of personal freedoms. It's a left-wing, UN-loving sorta thing from the *-go.[V][:(!][xx(]
Anytime you want to post a link to that study.......
quote:Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
You must be part pit-bull. [;)] The "blog" stated that the findings were obtained from a "pre-publication copy" (http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr) of the article you're so desperate to rip. I don't have the power to force it into publication nor do I have the passion to pursue it. Okay?
BTW, which do YOU enjoy--the giving up of personal freedoms or the paying of higher taxes for NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON?
The "blog" stated that the findings were obtained from a "pre-publication copy" (http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr) of the article you're so desperate to rip. I don't have the power to force it into publication nor do I have the passion to pursue it. Okay?
In other words, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Your only source is an article that hasn't been published and most likely will never be published
All you've shown is an ability to cherry-pick articles out of the blogoshere that agree with your point of view......
When it is exposed as a hoax, as almost all of these "studies" are, you'll simply move on to the next one as if this never even happened....
Well your stats as stated are somewhat misleading. It is actually less than have of papers published on the environment explicitly endorsed human mediated casues of global warming. Most, in fact, took no stand:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
The way you phrase it makes it look like less than have of all published scientists support the idea of global warming. But, that is what statistics are for, to say whatevr you want to believe from whatever political viewpoint you like best. I am betting on human mediated global warming, my self, driven mostly by mines burning in Asia.
I have to agree with you on most points, except one: statistics, like fire-arms are just a tool. They can be used properly, or improperly. Much of the time they're used improperly.
I think statisticians are bound by an ethical code to reveal truth rather than lies. Therefore a 'bad' statistician is one who makes the numbers fit the argument, and a 'good' statistician is one who tries to make the numbers to reflect reality.
The output of the sun has remained constant, Mars is warming up, but not at the same rate as earth, nor did its warming start at the same time, nor is its cause the same.
Got a link for that?
And in the event it turns out to not be a hoax, are you going to step up and say maybe you were wrong? Just wondering.[:D]
If it is a legitimate journal article, I'll acknowledge it as such. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, its nothing more than the figment of some blogger's imagination
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
The "blog" stated that the findings were obtained from a "pre-publication copy" (http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr) of the article you're so desperate to rip. I don't have the power to force it into publication nor do I have the passion to pursue it. Okay?
In other words, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Your only source is an article that hasn't been published and most likely will never be published
All you've shown is an ability to cherry-pick articles out of the blogoshere that agree with your point of view......
When it is exposed as a hoax, as almost all of these "studies" are, you'll simply move on to the next one as if this never even happened....
Rack-Ops--I don't remember peeing in your cheerios, but you seem to really have a problem. You don't have a clue about what I have a clue about since you don't know me.
Perhaps you have your own personal agenda--let me guess, you heard a lecture by Al Gore on Hysterical Meteorology when he stopped by your junior college and you've been bitten by the bug.
If you choose to SWALLOW the whole load, go for it. If you choose to tilt at "pre-publication" articles, go for it. Unless you have a crystal ball, how can YOU possibly know what will or won't be published?
Let's see YOUR magnificent credentials. In which journals are all your scholarly works published?
Otherwise, take issue with someone else's posts. I don't have time for your juvenile rants. Now run along. Your mother needs you to take out the trash.
Let it freeze, let it roast. Nothing I can or will do can alter the outcome anyway.
Lets talk guns and broads.
I really think it is a natural cycle and that things will again reverse. If we had records dating back thousands of years we would have a much clearer insight of this issue. Just my thoughts. swamp_thing
I have $50 that says that article is a hoax. Feel like making a bet, Ram?
If you're disinclined to betting, I'll agree to pledge that money to a charity of your choice.
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
The "blog" stated that the findings were obtained from a "pre-publication copy" (http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr) of the article you're so desperate to rip. I don't have the power to force it into publication nor do I have the passion to pursue it. Okay?
In other words, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Your only source is an article that hasn't been published and most likely will never be published
All you've shown is an ability to cherry-pick articles out of the blogoshere that agree with your point of view......
When it is exposed as a hoax, as almost all of these "studies" are, you'll simply move on to the next one as if this never even happened....
A quick bit of looking suggested to me that 'Energy and Environment' probably is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. On the other hand, I couldn't find a reference to it in the ISI database (that's the organization they make such a big deal about in the blog) which suggests that it is a 'third tier' journal at best. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And a 'pre-publication copy' means that it will be published, assuming nobody's lying.
But none of that means that the blogger to whom this thread refers has given the article a fair read. The article might state the situation as HeDog did above, and the blogger might have massaged the numbers to fit his agenda.
just my $0.02.
I have $50 that says that article is a hoax. Feel like making a bet, Ram?
If you're disinclined to betting, I'll agree to pledge that money to a charity of your choice.
Just go ahead and send me the cash--you seem to be gullible enough. Besides, how do I know YOU are not a hoax? [:p]
Imagine that.
Doesn't matter if it is humans causing the planet to warm up or not. What is important is to get away from a 100 plus year old technology that is limited by the ability of a few huge corporations to suck a finite resource from the ground. Nature can only support so many of us for so long until the earth shakes us off like so many fleas on a dog.
so said Thomas Malthus centuries ago. So said Paul Ehrlich for decades. Both have been proven wrong time and again.
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
Doesn't matter if it is humans causing the planet to warm up or not. What is important is to get away from a 100 plus year old technology that is limited by the ability of a few huge corporations to suck a finite resource from the ground. Nature can only support so many of us for so long until the earth shakes us off like so many fleas on a dog.
so said Thomas Malthus centuries ago. So said Paul Ehrlich for decades. Both have been proven wrong time and again.
And IMHO, those two drama-queen catastrophists are to blame for most of the skepticism that reasonable ecologists face from the public and policy makers. Ecologists tend to be conservationists, and this presents a problem for them--I should say 'us,' because I'm an ecologist. We seem to have a hard time just presenting objective scientific opinions without getting our panties in a bundle over how horrible the outcome could be. So folks like Ehrlich overstate the potentially disastrous outcome (he's done so at least three times that I'm aware of, and always had an excuse when he was wrong) and when he's found to be wrong--repeatedly!--no wonder nobody takes the ecologists seriously.
Nevertheless BDJ must ultimately be right: whatever the area of the earth, there is a finite number of human beings that can be packed in, shoulder to shoulder, before we simply run out of space. How much sooner than that we run out of essential resources is open to debate, but you can't argue with the fact that you can only literally fit a finite number of people on the planet.
Money talks.....Ramtin walks
(spoken as a professional 8th grader)
Imagine that.
Okay, Dim-wit, my point of the whole thing is that the Gorite whiners WANT your money through illegetimate, baseless taxation. If YOU want to get rid of your MONEY, give it to me. Unlike you, I'm not stupid enough to give up my money to you or anyone else over this ridiculous matter.
You can keep up your juvenile, snippy jabs all you want (maybe that's the best you've got)--you still haven't said anything of substance. As for HOAXES, it is FAR MORE LIKELY and PROVABLE that the "human-caused global warming" scare is a HOAX than the article I referenced in my original post.
BTW, here's some more "hoaxsters" to chew on--if you can actually read: http://tinyurl.com/2dc9ea
Now, will you please crawl back up your butt and give it a rest?
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
Doesn't matter if it is humans causing the planet to warm up or not. What is important is to get away from a 100 plus year old technology that is limited by the ability of a few huge corporations to suck a finite resource from the ground. Nature can only support so many of us for so long until the earth shakes us off like so many fleas on a dog.
so said Thomas Malthus centuries ago. So said Paul Ehrlich for decades. Both have been proven wrong time and again.
I don't know either of those fellas. They sound like sci-fi writers. I am making a mathematical statement of fact. When you rely on a diminishing resource or even a replenishable resource with an expanding population, eventually you will exceed the ability of the resource to support the population and you will have a massive die off within the population until an equalibrium is achieved again. It has occurred time and again in many species. The first signs of overpopulation in a species are increased homosexuality, increased violence or homicide and an increase in neglect or abuse of the young.If this doesn't stabilize the population it leads to a break down in the established social order which causes increased stress on each individual within the population which in turn leads to susceptibility to illness and disease which in turn leads to a massive die off of all but the best suited for the new environment.
I don't remember all of the footnotes I should include to give credit for the reseach these findings were based on, but even without the raw data it seems to be logical. Anyone with a fish tank could tell you the same thing.
Jeez, you mean no more Harlys?[:0]
If earth and all it's gases are contained in a giant bubble, What is the heat source that makes the gases expand and makes it hot?
or
on the flip side of the coin-
When you fill compressed gas Cylinder (for example) just like a bubble it also gets hot when compressed?
Physics 101 in my book-[:)]
Stats are many times unreliable as they can be, and often are, manipulated to reflect the desired point(s) of the composers.